So dumb... Apple introduced Leopard, which required more RAM, a faster processor, a better graphics card, and all around better hardware, and people were like "hey, this is cool, I'll get a new iMac that can handle Core Animation and it'll be neato!" When Microsoft even suggests that they're going to do something like DX11 people who have been using the same machine that they bought new with 98 on it are bitching up a storm. There are those of us who are okay spending $2000 every few years to get a great machine that does all the coolest stuff, and then there are those that don't want to spend the money, but still want to play the game. Replace that Packard Bell with something nice and new or stop bitching, 'cuz I'm getting a headache.
There was no need to reference Apple in your comment, are you trying to start yet another fanboy quarrel?
And no, Leopard doesn't require a "new machine." It'll run on G4, G5, and Intel processors, with just 512 MB ram.
Windows 7 needs to be good, Vista has already damaged Microsoft's reputation enough. I had Vista on a Toshiba laptop it took me twice as long to get something done as it would with XP. Downgraded to XP and I was much more happier... Although, I really can't stand having to search for drivers all the time - that's one thing that I really enjoy with Apples.
@ Fuzzmanmatt: What? Leopard puts very small demands on hardware vs. Tiger compared to Vista vs. XP. My rev. A MacBook with its crappy integrated Intel graphics runs Leopard smoother than Tiger.
This is why we keep it all in the kernel. Of course, there are times when we have to let the restricted driver manager do it's thing, but besides the resent, it's pretty painless.
That's simply just not true. I own a PowerMac G4 1 Ghz Dual Processor with 1.5 GB RAM and a whopping 64 MB video card. Leopard runs fine. And it ran fine before the updates (10.5.1 and 10.5.2) came out. That's a seven year old machine. I'm not arrogant enough to say that no one had any trouble with leopard, but to say that you need a new machine to run it is just a lie.
I did buy a new iMac but not at all because of the OS. My trouble was with the music production program I use. The processor wasn't capable of handling it without crashing. And no, Leopard didn't crash just the music program.
# Fuzzman : Where did you get that information? From someone at MS i guess. Leopard runs fine on machines that where purchased in the days that XM was released so I really wonder how you be so dumb to say you need new hardware for an OSX upgrade!
The new FiOS HD DVR, arguably the biggest update since Verizon released a DVR, thanks to its external storage support, enhanced multi-room functionality and slick new 16x9 HD user interface.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
So dumb... Apple introduced Leopard, which required more RAM, a faster processor, a better graphics card, and all around better hardware, and people were like "hey, this is cool, I'll get a new iMac that can handle Core Animation and it'll be neato!" When Microsoft even suggests that they're going to do something like DX11 people who have been using the same machine that they bought new with 98 on it are bitching up a storm. There are those of us who are okay spending $2000 every few years to get a great machine that does all the coolest stuff, and then there are those that don't want to spend the money, but still want to play the game. Replace that Packard Bell with something nice and new or stop bitching, 'cuz I'm getting a headache.
There was no need to reference Apple in your comment, are you trying to start yet another fanboy quarrel?
And no, Leopard doesn't require a "new machine." It'll run on G4, G5, and Intel processors, with just 512 MB ram.
Windows 7 needs to be good, Vista has already damaged Microsoft's reputation enough. I had Vista on a Toshiba laptop it took me twice as long to get something done as it would with XP. Downgraded to XP and I was much more happier... Although, I really can't stand having to search for drivers all the time - that's one thing that I really enjoy with Apples.
@ Fuzzmanmatt: What? Leopard puts very small demands on hardware vs. Tiger compared to Vista vs. XP. My rev. A MacBook with its crappy integrated Intel graphics runs Leopard smoother than Tiger.
"Although, I really can't stand having to search for drivers all the time - that's one thing that I really enjoy with Apples."
Is that because you have no choice with what hardware you use?
Drivers. Heh, I remember those.
This is why we keep it all in the kernel. Of course, there are times when we have to let the restricted driver manager do it's thing, but besides the resent, it's pretty painless.
@Fuzzmanmatt
That's simply just not true. I own a PowerMac G4 1 Ghz Dual Processor with 1.5 GB RAM and a whopping 64 MB video card. Leopard runs fine. And it ran fine before the updates (10.5.1 and 10.5.2) came out. That's a seven year old machine. I'm not arrogant enough to say that no one had any trouble with leopard, but to say that you need a new machine to run it is just a lie.
I did buy a new iMac but not at all because of the OS. My trouble was with the music production program I use. The processor wasn't capable of handling it without crashing. And no, Leopard didn't crash just the music program.
# Fuzzman : Where did you get that information? From someone at MS i guess. Leopard runs fine on machines that where purchased in the days that XM was released so I really wonder how you be so dumb to say you need new hardware for an OSX upgrade!